Originally Posted by dodger.blue
First I must apologize for letting this get so far off topic, but the door was opened when someone announced that Intel didn't do anything illegal to maintain its monopoly.
I cited my sources to show the contrary, no one else did, because frankly they don't want the damage caused by the re-writing of program code and the sales from OEM's to be as damaging as they actually were. But it was and AMD has been hurt by it, VIA has been hurt by it, ATI has been hurt by it, and Nvidia has been hurt by it.
Keep in mind that they only got their settlment in 2009 and it takes many years to develope a product so we won't see the fruits from it for some time. I know I shouldn't expect these forum goers to know how economics work and clearly they don't. You can't innovate without money, but again I shouldn't expect any of you to understand how economics work.
Finally, the largest gap in performance in CPU history was between the Pentium 4/D and the Core 2, not between the Core 2 and the Athlon 64. The Core 2 was not an evolution of the Pentium 4, in fact it was an evolution of the Pentium M which was based on the Pentium 3. Yes, this is the shoddy processor to which I was referring, but the entire Pentium line (Pentium 2 through Pentium D) were shoddy. The only market Intel should have been seeing sales from was its mobile processors (Pentium M/Core Duo) of which it has always been superior in. AMD always had servers/desktops, Intel always had laptops.
With that, I have said what I had come to say and I won't bother correcting blatant misinformation anymore. If anyone feels the need to correct me, please cite your sources and remember, Wikipedia is not an academically accepted source.
Now get back on topic!
You really wine too much. This is business, you act like Intel personally assaulted your wife. Business is about increasing revenue and beating down the competition. If things cross the line, you take it to court and settle it there and life goes on. Speaking of monopolies, Walmart is one too, they basically bully suppliers into whatever pricing they want. It seems unfair, but such is life. The big fish in the pond rains supreme.
Now more on topic, Intel > AMD in cutting edge technology and performance, end of story. IF you want a cheap budget build, both offer good choices. Many would argue AMD is the best at mid to low range processor pricing. Personally, I go with whatever will give me the best performance for my dollar.
To finish of, AMD is no different than Intel, if they were the top dog right now, they'd bully around Intel too. AMD's pricing is bases solely upon strategy and demand. A good example of this was when nVidia was stuttering to get Fermi out. AMD took full advantage of this and made us pay top dollar for their videocards. In the end, is all about maximizing the $$$
.Edited by whitingnick - 5/8/11 at 12:04pm